Author
Topic: On Francis..... (Read 19287 times)

This older article on the current pope and what he's said recently seems to be prophetic.

Pope Frank really is just another Jesuit closet-Marxist pushing their commie totalitarianism in religious drag, just another off shoot of the dreaded "Liberation Theology" while placating and possibly enabling sodomites in and out of the clergy.

Just when Benedict seemed to begin to steer the Church back into orthodoxy, along comes Mr.Humility and Social Justice bloviating about "tolerance" for just about everything except for Tradition, the TLM and core Church doctrines and values. Then he becomes Mr Ironfist with absolute authority. But for everyone else non-Catholic, he's simply reverts back to just the simple ol "Bishop of Rome".

I do not trust this "ecu-maniac" in the least.

I long for the days of Benedict where there was at least the perception of trying to do a little housecleaning and recover from the days of the last big tenter and Koran-kisser, but alas, the clown show has returned.

On FrancisFrancis, like his homeland of Argentina, is a total disaster. He has overseen the near-total destruction of the Church in Argentina. He hates and despises the Tridentine Mass, which is to say that he hates the Mass - let's not mince words, and is a rabid persecutor of anyone in Argentina who shows ANY signs of tradition. A priest in Argentina literally risks the end of his career if he wears a cassock in public. He has forbidden the Tridentine Mass in Argentina, which is an act of direct disobedience, specifically against the papal decree Summorum Pontificum, but embraces horrific "charismatic" and "Superfun Rockband"-type liturgical sacrilege.

Which brings us to his regard for the papacy, and the Church itself. He said yesterday in his bizarre little speech, again and again, that he was the Bishop of Rome, which is true, but in being the Bishop of Rome the pope is the head of the Universal Church, not just the city of Rome. Francis does not believe this, and even made a reference to the idea that the pope is "first among equals". This means that he regards the Church as a mere loose confederacy, and also that he thinks the Church is, or should be, a democracy. The proof of this is, again, his blatant disobedience to Summorum Pontificum. He will never do anything to clean up the sodomite infiltrators in the Church outside of Rome because he doesn't feel that the pope has any authority outside of Rome. Bottom line here: many bishops and archbishops have been kept in line over the past eight years because Benedict was relatively aggressive in booting out extremely bad bishops. Benedict was feared in a healthy way. This guy is basically the big green light to every Marxist-homosexualist to just go ahead and do whatever, because they know Francis will never remove them or even chastise them, because Francis doesn't believe that the pope has any universal authority and is merely the bishop of the city of Rome proper - at least that is the excuse that will be given when nothing is done about abuses and heresies **that Francis is sympathetic towards.**

Indeed, Benedict's strategy of "Natural Solution" of removing the libs from the College of Cardinals proved to be a disaster.

There's only one way to deal with a cancer and that is to confront it right away, not ignore it and wait for it to die.

It doesn't die, it only spreads.

Barnhardt nails it;

"Benedict thought that between the "Natural Solution" (the passage of time yielding the death or retirement of the bad guys) and the appointments he was able to make over the last eight years that he had set up the College of Cardinals to elect a successor that was very much in the Ratzingerian camp. Benedict was wrong. Not only did they not elect a Ratzingerian, they elected the anti-Ratzinger. In the 2005 conclave Francis came in second to Ratzinger, which is to say that Francis was the "opposition". In what must have Benedict's mind reeling today, after eight years of purging and priming the College of Cardinals, the very men Ratzinger placed turned around and elected the anti-Ratzinger. This proves, as I have said all along, that playing prevent defense, namely the "natural solution" of waiting for the bad guys to die is UNSOUND. In war, you fix your bayonets, say your prayers, and you charge."

Which brings us to his regard for the papacy, and the Church itself. He said yesterday in his bizarre little speech, again and again, that he was the Bishop of Rome, which is true, but in being the Bishop of Rome the pope is the head of the Universal Church, not just the city of Rome. Francis does not believe this, and even made a reference to the idea that the pope is "first among equals". This means that he regards the Church as a mere loose confederacy, [...]

He will never do anything to clean up the sodomite infiltrators in the Church outside of Rome because he doesn't feel that the pope has any authority outside of Rome.

Which brings us to his regard for the papacy, and the Church itself. He said yesterday in his bizarre little speech, again and again, that he was the Bishop of Rome, which is true, but in being the Bishop of Rome the pope is the head of the Universal Church, not just the city of Rome. Francis does not believe this, and even made a reference to the idea that the pope is "first among equals". This means that he regards the Church as a mere loose confederacy, [...]

He will never do anything to clean up the sodomite infiltrators in the Church outside of Rome because he doesn't feel that the pope has any authority outside of Rome.

Is this the beginning of a possible return to healthy ecclesiology?

This is my reaction to that portion, as well. Proof that nobody is 100% wrong all the time...no matter how heretical and ecu-maniacal they are.

Pope Frank really is just another Jesuit closet-Marxist pushing their commie totalitarianism in religious drag, just another off shoot of the dreaded "Liberation Theology" while placating and possibly enabling sodomites in and out of the clergy.

Really?

I thought he was Argentinian, oh well

In reality, I don't know what all the hype and fury over this guy is about. Sure, if you take everything he says out of context--like the media has been doing--you may find fault with him, but when you really listen to what he is saying, I don't think he is doing anything wrong. Everything he has said has been in line with the Roman Catholic Church's teachings. The only difference is that Pope Francis is more pastoral, compassionate, and better with people than his predecessors were. Whereas Pope Benedict would come off as a jerk to most people, Pope Francis comes off as a humble man who is genuinely sincere.

1. You have been warned many times that we do not permit the use of obscenities on this forum.2. You have also been warned that partially veiled obscenities receive the same treatment as unveiled obscenities.3. You know full well that we consider the obscenity you used here as an obscenity, since you took the extra step of masking some of it out.

Therefore, you are now on Post Moderation for the next 45 days. If you think this action unfair or too harsh, please appeal it to me via private message.

In reality, I don't know what all the hype and fury over this guy is about. Sure, if you take everything he says out of context--like the media has been doing--you may find fault with him

The trouble with this idea is that all people (both pro-Francis and not) who have been arguing about this man and what he really means for the past few days on this messageboard have been looking at the same interview(s), from the same media source(s). So it's not that one side is being duped by the media and the other not. Rather, you're looking at the same statements and coming to vastly different conclusions. So it's a bit silly to say that those who find fault with what he says are taking him "out of context" -- we all have the same context to work with, which has been shaped by the presentation of interview in the same media, no matter what conclusions we draw from it.

Quote

but when you really listen to what he is saying, I don't think he is doing anything wrong. Everything he has said has been in line with the Roman Catholic Church's teachings. The only difference is that Pope Francis is more pastoral, compassionate, and better with people than his predecessors were. Whereas Pope Benedict would come off as a d-bag to most people, Pope Francis comes off as a humble man who is genuinely sincere.

Would you rather a Christian leader (pope, bishop, priest, whatever) who teaches correct doctrine and does not apologize for it or bend it to his personal whims and politics, or a Pope you think is a nice guy? Maybe I'm an extremist, but I've seen what kind of a mess we get into in the USA when we elect a president who we'd like to have a beer with rather than one who knows what he's doing (to the extent that those are two separate skills, and you can have one without the other). I don't think Popes are any different, really. Pope Francis has a job to do, and whether you think he's doing it well or you think he's terrible, "he comes off as humble and sincere" is not a proper criterion by which to judge his suitability for the office. Yes, yes, he's a statesman as well, but if your primary concern as a worshiper who is in union with him is his doctrinal orthodoxy...? I can think of at least a few others who fit that bill (who may or may not be described as "humble and sincere", depending on how warm 'n' fuzzy we want to get in this discussion; me, I'll pass), and I'm not even Catholic.

Pope Frank really is just another Jesuit closet-Marxist pushing their commie totalitarianism in religious drag, just another off shoot of the dreaded "Liberation Theology" while placating and possibly enabling sodomites in and out of the clergy.

Really?

I thought he was Argentinian, oh well

In reality, I don't know what all the hype and fury over this guy is about. Sure, if you take everything he says out of context--like the media has been doing--you may find fault with him, but when you really listen to what he is saying, I don't think he is doing anything wrong. Everything he has said has been in line with the Roman Catholic Church's teachings. The only difference is that Pope Francis is more pastoral, compassionate, and better with people than his predecessors were. Whereas Pope Benedict would come off as a d-bag to most people, Pope Francis comes off as a humble man who is genuinely sincere.

I would have never thought Pope Benedict as a d-bag. Do you think he was any less sincere?

Logged

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

I'm not a Pope Francis fan either, but some of this is extremist nonsense.

Which parts might that be my brother Papist?

The traditionalists are not the extremists, the extremists are the ones like the friends of Frank out there and their attempt to turn the Church into another form of the Democratic party. The extremists want to erase all vestiage of the Mass of all time, the beautiful and Holy TLM. The extremists don't want to mention anything about the Church being the True Faith or tell anyone that Homosexuality is sin or that the slaughter of unborn children is unacceptable or that any faith oustide of the Church is in danger of losing their eternal salvation. The extermists don't feel the need for nonCatholics to convert to the True Church or that atheists seek divine knowledge for the existence of God and a grand design for the universe. The extremists want the Church to become more like the world, not vise-versa.

Yes, now that you mention it, I see a lot of extremist nonsense coming out of the Vatican these days.

Pope Frank really is just another Jesuit closet-Marxist pushing their commie totalitarianism in religious drag, just another off shoot of the dreaded "Liberation Theology" while placating and possibly enabling sodomites in and out of the clergy.

Really?

I thought he was Argentinian, oh well

In reality, I don't know what all the hype and fury over this guy is about. Sure, if you take everything he says out of context--like the media has been doing--you may find fault with him, but when you really listen to what he is saying, I don't think he is doing anything wrong. Everything he has said has been in line with the Roman Catholic Church's teachings. The only difference is that Pope Francis is more pastoral, compassionate, and better with people than his predecessors were. Whereas Pope Benedict would come off as a d-bag to most people, Pope Francis comes off as a humble man who is genuinely sincere.

I would have never thought Pope Benedict as a d-bag. Do you think he was any less sincere?

Other than shuffling Priests around, I don't know if he was any less sincere or not, but I'm talking about the appearance and what people perceive him as. I don't know if Pope Benedict was any less sincere or not, but he certainly did not demonstrate it in his personality. He came off as sterner, whereas Pope Francis seems much more pastoral and gives the appearance of sincerity and meekness.

I'm not the one who shuffled molester Priests around to avoid them being prosecuted.

If your contention is that Benedict XVI is solely responsible for this, then I stand by my recommendation that you not make ignorant comments. I don't recommend that you read more about it, because you likely do not have the attention span or critical thinking skills required to make sense of what you'd be reading, so I will simply recommend silence.

I'm not a Pope Francis fan either, but some of this is extremist nonsense.

Which parts might that be my brother Papist?

The traditionalists are not the extremists, the extremists are the ones like the friends of Frank out there and their attempt to turn the Church into another form of the Democratic party. The extremists want to erase all vestiage of the Mass of all time, the beautiful and Holy TLM. The extremists don't want to mention anything about the Church being the True Faith or tell anyone that Homosexuality is sin or that the slaughter of unborn children is unacceptable or that any faith oustide of the Church is in danger of losing their eternal salvation. The extermists don't feel the need for nonCatholics to convert to the True Church or that atheists seek divine knowledge for the existence of God and a grand design for the universe. The extremists want the Church to become more like the world, not vise-versa.

Yes, now that you mention it, I see a lot of extremist nonsense coming out of the Vatican these days.

Well, for one thing, it is extremist and definitively un-Catholic, and not traditionalist to refer to the Holy Father as "Frank" or "Bergo" or whatever other name you seem to want to come up with. You and I are both traditionalist Catholics, and as such, we refer to the Pope as the Holy Father.

It's not really difficult to type "Francis" instead of "Frank". It's only two extra letters, and going out of your way to put down other things just makes you seem kind of petty. We get it, you don't like him. Neither do many people here, but he's still Francis, not "Frank" or "Bergo" or whatever. I mean, if I started calling you 'Chip' instead of Charles because you post things that some people disagree with here, wouldn't that seem just a bit disrespectful? I imagine it would, and you're not even Pope of anything.

I'm not a Pope Francis fan either, but some of this is extremist nonsense.

Which parts might that be my brother Papist?

The traditionalists are not the extremists, the extremists are the ones like the friends of Frank out there and their attempt to turn the Church into another form of the Democratic party. The extremists want to erase all vestiage of the Mass of all time, the beautiful and Holy TLM. The extremists don't want to mention anything about the Church being the True Faith or tell anyone that Homosexuality is sin or that the slaughter of unborn children is unacceptable or that any faith oustide of the Church is in danger of losing their eternal salvation. The extermists don't feel the need for nonCatholics to convert to the True Church or that atheists seek divine knowledge for the existence of God and a grand design for the universe. The extremists want the Church to become more like the world, not vise-versa.

Yes, now that you mention it, I see a lot of extremist nonsense coming out of the Vatican these days.

Well, for one thing, it is extremist and definitively un-Catholic, and not traditionalist to refer to the Holy Father as "Frank" or "Bergo" or whatever other name you seem to want to come up with. You and I are both traditionalist Catholics, and as such, we refer to the Pope as the Holy Father.

Papist, you fall into the rare category of self-described "traditionalist" who is not easily identifiable because of an unnecessary, larger-than-life martyr complex on the Internet. I salute you.

(FTR, you've never come off as anything other than a faithful Catholic.)

« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 09:16:44 PM by Agabus »

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

It's not really difficult to type "Francis" instead of "Frank". It's only two extra letters, and going out of your way to put down other things just makes you seem kind of petty. We get it, you don't like him. Neither do many people here, but he's still Francis, not "Frank" or "Bergo" or whatever. I mean, if I started calling you 'Chip' instead of Charles because you post things that some people disagree with here, wouldn't that seem just a bit disrespectful? I imagine it would, and you're not even Pope of anything.

Plus there's that whole rule about titles...

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I'm not the one who shuffled molester Priests around to avoid them being prosecuted.

If your contention is that Benedict XVI is solely responsible for this, then I stand by my recommendation that you not make ignorant comments. I don't recommend that you read more about it, because you likely do not have the attention span or critical thinking skills required to make sense of what you'd be reading, so I will simply recommend silence.

"Solely"? What does it matter? The fact of the matter is that he is responsible for it, regardless of how many others are involved. In fact, we are all responsible for this because inaction to do anything is support for the evil. But most of us aren't the alleged Vicar's of Christ on Earth with the power to actually do something big about it, and certainly not all of us have shuffled Priests around to try to cover-up their crimes. Say what you want about Pope Francis on his theology (which is odd coming from a non-Chalcedonian btw), but at least his personality is better and he seems to be actually doing something about this matter. In my book, Pope Francis automatically qualifies as a decent average human being; that's much more than I can say about his predecessor.

Forbidden epithet replaced with something more acceptable for the Public Forum -PtA

You are being warned for 20 days for using the forbidden epither against the Oriental Orthodox - MK.

Say what you want about Pope Francis on his theology (which is odd coming from a monophysite btw)

Odd coming from a what on the public forum?

I don't know why you'd throw this out there anyway, JamesR...you're the one who shares a common Christology with Popes Benedict and Francis, not us...and Christology has nothing to do with Pope Francis' much-vaunted better personality...as though that itself has anything to do with his doctrinal integrity...

But, hey...go ahead and throw as much mud at the wall as you can. Maybe some will even stick.

I'm not the one who shuffled molester Priests around to avoid them being prosecuted.

If your contention is that Benedict XVI is solely responsible for this, then I stand by my recommendation that you not make ignorant comments. I don't recommend that you read more about it, because you likely do not have the attention span or critical thinking skills required to make sense of what you'd be reading, so I will simply recommend silence.

"Solely"? What does it matter? The fact of the matter is that he is responsible for it, regardless of how many others are involved. In fact, we are all responsible for this because inaction to do anything is support for the evil. But most of us aren't the alleged Vicar's of Christ on Earth with the power to actually do something big about it, and certainly not all of us have shuffled Priests around to try to cover-up their crimes. Say what you want about Pope Francis on his theology (which is odd coming from a monophysite btw), but at least his personality is better and he seems to be actually doing something about this matter. In my book, Pope Francis automatically qualifies as a decent average human being; that's much more than I can say about his predecessor.

Until it's revealed that he did exactly the same thing.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

"Solely"? What does it matter? The fact of the matter is that he is responsible for it, regardless of how many others are involved. In fact, we are all responsible for this because inaction to do anything is support for the evil.

This was the point at which you should've stopped typing, hit "Post", and enjoyed the feeling of satisfaction that comes with appearing to be an adult with something halfway decent to contribute. But you can't help yourself.

Quote

But most of us aren't the alleged Vicar's of Christ on Earth with the power to actually do something big about it, and certainly not all of us have shuffled Priests around to try to cover-up their crimes.

"Vicars", not "Vicar's".

Which priests did Pope Benedict shuffle around in order to cover up their crimes?

Quote

Say what you want about Pope Francis on his theology (which is odd coming from a non-Chalcedonian btw), but at least his personality is better and he seems to be actually doing something about this matter.

Unless you and he are BFFs or something, how would you know anything about his personality versus Benedict's (or any other Pope's) apart from what you hear in the clearly opinionated media?

Quote

In my book, Pope Francis automatically qualifies as a decent average human being; that's much more than I can say about his predecessor.

So let me get this straight. In order for the Church to be valid, you need a head honcho that you call the Pope because everyone knows that you need to have a final authority to answer to. However, the Pope that is the final authority and the Vicar of Christ is hellbent on destroying the Church and ruining it, so you feel it is acceptable to insult him personally because he doesn't govern in the way you feel is acceptable.

So let me get this straight. In order for the Church to be valid, you need a head honcho that you call the Pope because everyone knows that you need to have a final authority to answer to. However, the Pope that is the final authority and the Vicar of Christ is hellbent on destroying the Church and ruining it, so you feel it is acceptable to insult him personally because he doesn't govern in the way you feel is acceptable.